Bad World: The Negativity Bias In International Politics

A major puzzle in international relations is why states privilege negative over positive information. States tend to inflate threats, exhibit loss aversion, and learn more from failures than from successes. Rationalist accounts fail to explain this phenomenon, because systematically overweighting bad over good may in fact undermine state interests. New research in psychology, however, offers an explanation. The “negativity bias” has emerged as a fundamental principle of the human mind, in which people\u27s response to positive and negative information is asymmetric. Negative factors have greater effects than positive factors across a wide range of psychological phenomena, including cognition, motivation, emotion, information processing, decision-making, learning, and memory. Put simply, bad is stronger than good. Scholars have long pointed to the role of positive biases, such as overconfidence, in causing war, but negative biases are actually more pervasive and may represent a core explanation for patterns of conflict. Positive and negative dispositions apply in different contexts. People privilege negative information about the external environment and other actors, but positive information about themselves. The coexistence of biases can increase the potential for conflict. Decisionmakers simultaneously exaggerate the severity of threats and exhibit overconfidence about their capacity to deal with them. Overall, the negativity bias is a potent force in human judgment and decisionmaking, with important implications for international relations theory and practice

The Rubicon Theory of War How the Path to Conflict Reaches the Point of No Return

A major paradox in international relations is the widespread fear and anxiety that underlies the security dilemma in times of peace and the prevalence of overconfidence or false optimism on the eve of war. A new theory of the causes of war—the Rubicon theory of war—can account for this paradox and explain important historical puzzles. The Rubicon model of action phases, which was developed in experimental psychology, describes a significant shift in people\u27s susceptibility to psychological biases before and after making a decision. Prior to making decisions, people tend to maintain a deliberative mind-set, weighing the costs, benefits, and risks of different options in a relatively impartial manner. By contrast, after making a decision, people tend to switch into an implemental mind-set that triggers a set of powerful psychological biases, including closed-mindedness, biased information processing, cognitive dissonance, self-serving evaluations, the illusion of control, and optimism. Together, these biases lead to significant overconfidence. The Rubicon theory of war applies this model to the realm of international conflict, where implemental mind-sets can narrow the range of bargaining options, promote overambitious war plans, and elevate the probability of war

Penrose Limits, Deformed pp-Waves and the String Duals of N=1 Large n Gauge Theory

A certain conformally invariant N=1 supersymmetric SU(n) gauge theory has a description as an infra-red fixed point obtained by deforming the N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory by giving a mass to one of its N=1 chiral multiplets. We study the Penrose limit of the supergravity dual of the large n limit of this N=1 gauge theory. The limit gives a pp-wave with R-R five-form flux and both R-R and NS-NS three-form flux. We discover that this new solution preserves twenty supercharges and that, in the light-cone gauge, string theory on this background is exactly solvable. Correspondingly, this latter is the stringy dual of a particular large charge limit of the large n gauge theory. We are able to identify which operators in the field theory survive the limit to form the string's ground state and some of the spacetime excitations. The full string model, which we exhibit, contains a family of non-trivial predictions for the properties of the gauge theory operators which survive the limit.Comment: 39 pages, Late

Fortune Favours the Bold: An Agent-Based Model Reveals Adaptive Advantages of Overconfidence in War

Overconfidence has long been considered a cause of war. Like other decision-making biases, overconfidence seems detrimental because it increases the frequency and costs of fighting. However, evolutionary biologists have proposed that overconfidence may also confer adaptive advantages: increasing ambition, resolve, persistence, bluffing opponents, and winning net payoffs from risky opportunities despite occasional failures. We report the results of an agent-based model of inter-state conflict, which allows us to evaluate the performance of different strategies in competition with each other. Counter-intuitively, we find that overconfident states predominate in the population at the expense of unbiased or underconfident states. Overconfident states win because: (1) they are more likely to accumulate resources from frequent attempts at conquest; (2) they are more likely to gang up on weak states, forcing victims to split their defences; and (3) when the decision threshold for attacking requires an overwhelming asymmetry of power, unbiased and underconfident states shirk many conflicts they are actually likely to win. These “adaptive advantages” of overconfidence may, via selection effects, learning, or evolved psychology, have spread and become entrenched among modern states, organizations and decision-makers. This would help to explain the frequent association of overconfidence and war, even if it no longer brings benefits today

Studying black holes on horizon scales with space-VLBI

The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) recently produced the first horizon-scale image of a supermassive black hole. Expanding the array to include a 3-meter space telescope operating at >200 GHz enables mass measurements of many black holes, movies of black hole accretion flows, and new tests of general relativity that are impossible from the ground

Personal Protective Equipment and Antiviral Drug Use during Hospitalization for Suspected Avian or Pandemic Influenza1

In a pandemic, many current national stockpiles of PPE and antiviral medications are likely inadequate